:Q: Since this is pre-1752 Quaker date, should this be the twelve month in the quaker year 1743 and 1744 in the calendar year? -- [[User:Wiedwoman|Wiedwoman]] 22:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

:Q: Since this is pre-1752 Quaker date, should this be the twelve month in the quaker year 1743 and 1744 in the calendar year? -- [[User:Wiedwoman|Wiedwoman]] 22:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

-

:A: Therefore the date should be recorded "Feb. 20, 1744". The double date satisfies the Julian and Gregorian calendars. Since we use the Gregorian calendar, today, then you use the latter year. See: [http://www.genealogytoday.com/columns/recipes/tip14.html The Problem of Dates]--[[User:Hardcoal|Hardcoal]] 23:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

+

::A: Therefore the date should be recorded "Feb. 20, 1744". The double date satisfies the Julian and Gregorian calendars. Since we use the Gregorian calendar, today, then you use the latter year. See: [http://www.genealogytoday.com/columns/recipes/tip14.html The Problem of Dates]--[[User:Hardcoal|Hardcoal]] 23:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

-

:A: This is not a Quaker format date as it gives the name of the month rather than the number, and it should be keyed as Feb 20 1743. --[[User:Katerimmer|Katerimmer]] 23:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

+

:::A: This is not a Quaker format date as it gives the name of the month rather than the number, and it should be keyed as Feb 20 1743. --[[User:Katerimmer|Katerimmer]] 23:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

-

:A: You are correct the date recorded in the scanned book is not in the Quaker Date format it has already been "corrected" for the number, number, number format (since the Quakers did not use the name of the month derived from pagan gods names and they also still used the Julian Calendar). Please read the link: [http://www.genealogytoday.com/columns/recipes/tip14.html The Problem of Dates]. "Although March 25 was the beginning of the year prior to 1752 for ecclesiastical, legal, and civil purposes, since Norman times, January 1 was considered to be the beginning of the historical year. This gave rise to a double dating system in some places -- between January 1 and March 25. If a person's birth date was 25 February 1741, the date might be written 25 February 1741/42. This showed that he was born 25 February 1741 under the Julian calendar, but in 1742 under the Gregorian calendar. Even after England and her colonies changed the Gregorian calendar in 1752, this double dating system was continued by some colonial record keepers. This is confusing because some record keepers used double dating and some didn't; some continued it after 1752 and others didn't. It's very inconsistent and it helps to be aware of this." --[[User:Hardcoal|Hardcoal]] 00:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

+

::::A: You are correct the date recorded in the scanned book is not in the Quaker Date format it has already been "corrected" for the number, number, number format (since the Quakers did not use the name of the month derived from pagan gods names and they also still used the Julian Calendar). Please read the link: [http://www.genealogytoday.com/columns/recipes/tip14.html The Problem of Dates]. "Although March 25 was the beginning of the year prior to 1752 for ecclesiastical, legal, and civil purposes, since Norman times, January 1 was considered to be the beginning of the historical year. This gave rise to a double dating system in some places -- between January 1 and March 25. If a person's birth date was 25 February 1741, the date might be written 25 February 1741/42. This showed that he was born 25 February 1741 under the Julian calendar, but in 1742 under the Gregorian calendar. Even after England and her colonies changed the Gregorian calendar in 1752, this double dating system was continued by some colonial record keepers. This is confusing because some record keepers used double dating and some didn't; some continued it after 1752 and others didn't. It's very inconsistent and it helps to be aware of this." --[[User:Hardcoal|Hardcoal]] 00:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

+

+

:::::A: Kate, I have to agree with Hardcoal on how to record the year. They all only seem to be showing as double years from Jan 1st to March 25th. -- [[User:Wiedwoman|Wiedwoman]] 02:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Q: '''Copy from above''': Are records, ''not'' stating the father and mother (i.e. "of William and Sarah"), but are directly below ones stating a father and mother of the same family? Therefore, would I just copy down the father and mother from above assuming the following record represents a child of that family until another mother and father are listed?

Q: '''Copy from above''': Are records, ''not'' stating the father and mother (i.e. "of William and Sarah"), but are directly below ones stating a father and mother of the same family? Therefore, would I just copy down the father and mother from above assuming the following record represents a child of that family until another mother and father are listed?

Revision as of 02:52, 28 December 2012

Standard Copy and paste the text below into the discussion tab on the wiki:

Feel free to add to or edit information in this discussion tab as necessary. Please take time to become familiar with the General Keying Standards and be sure to read all instructions on the main project page. (Please note that in case of a discrepancy, project level instructions always trump general keying standards.)

Contents

Extra Keying Helps

If you are keying Quaker records prior to 1752 the numbering of the months does not follow our typical numbering. Please refer to the chart below.

Common Keying Errors Found by Reviewers

Do not key Jr in given or surname fields. Per keying guidelines: In cases where the name is listed as Rev. John Smith, or John Smith, Jr, and there is not a prefix or suffix field the name should be entered with John in the Given Name field and Smith in the Surname field, without either prefix or suffix. [1] -- Wiedwoman 21:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Do not key any ranks that may appear.

Please check that you have keyed the Event City if it appears at the top of the page. Even though the city name may appear only once on the image, if you miss it out of every record on the page, it could have a bad effect on your accuracy stats! --Katerimmer 12:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC). Also, some cities will appear just before the date in parenthesis, substitute that city name in these cases? --Hardcoal 18:17, 27 December 2012 (EST)

Questions and Answers

If you have a keying question that is not answered on the project page or in any of the information above, click “EDIT” and ask it here. (If you click on Rich Editor you won't have to worry about formatting your entry.) Then click “WATCH” at the top right on this page and you will be notified via email when an update has been made.

Q: Double-dating: If a record has the following date, "Feb. 20, 1743-4," how would you key the year?

Q: Since this is pre-1752 Quaker date, should this be the twelve month in the quaker year 1743 and 1744 in the calendar year? -- Wiedwoman 22:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

A: Therefore the date should be recorded "Feb. 20, 1744". The double date satisfies the Julian and Gregorian calendars. Since we use the Gregorian calendar, today, then you use the latter year. See: The Problem of Dates--Hardcoal 23:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

A: This is not a Quaker format date as it gives the name of the month rather than the number, and it should be keyed as Feb 20 1743. --Katerimmer 23:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

A: You are correct the date recorded in the scanned book is not in the Quaker Date format it has already been "corrected" for the number, number, number format (since the Quakers did not use the name of the month derived from pagan gods names and they also still used the Julian Calendar). Please read the link: The Problem of Dates. "Although March 25 was the beginning of the year prior to 1752 for ecclesiastical, legal, and civil purposes, since Norman times, January 1 was considered to be the beginning of the historical year. This gave rise to a double dating system in some places -- between January 1 and March 25. If a person's birth date was 25 February 1741, the date might be written 25 February 1741/42. This showed that he was born 25 February 1741 under the Julian calendar, but in 1742 under the Gregorian calendar. Even after England and her colonies changed the Gregorian calendar in 1752, this double dating system was continued by some colonial record keepers. This is confusing because some record keepers used double dating and some didn't; some continued it after 1752 and others didn't. It's very inconsistent and it helps to be aware of this." --Hardcoal 00:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

A: Kate, I have to agree with Hardcoal on how to record the year. They all only seem to be showing as double years from Jan 1st to March 25th. -- Wiedwoman 02:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Q: Copy from above: Are records, not stating the father and mother (i.e. "of William and Sarah"), but are directly below ones stating a father and mother of the same family? Therefore, would I just copy down the father and mother from above assuming the following record represents a child of that family until another mother and father are listed?

Suggestions/Additions

If you have a suggestion or would like to make an addition to the project page, click “EDIT” and post your suggestion here. (If you click on Rich Editor you won't have to worry about formatting your entry.) Then click “WATCH” at the top right on this page and you will be notified via email when an update has been made.